2019-11-19 CC Agenda - Additional Information related to Item #6EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: November 5, 2019
AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
Consideration and possible action regarding an Ordinance amending Title 15 of the El Segundo
Municipal Code to establish a Public Art or In -Lieu Fee Requirement and a Cultural
Development Fund (otherwise known as a "Percent for Arts" fee). Fiscal Impact: Approximately
$685,000 in public art and fee revenues per year.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Receive and file presentation by Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and City staff;
2. Open public hearing;
3. Take testimony and other evidence as presented;
4. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Title 15 of
the El Segundo Municipal Code to establish a Cultural Development Fund and Cultural
Development Fee;
5. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for November 19, 2019; or
6. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance No.
2. El Segundo Planning Commission Resolution 2875
3. Percent for Arts/Art in Public Places Ordinances — LA County Arts Commission (2018)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal:
1
Enhance Customer Service, Engagement, and Communications
Objective:
(a)
El Segundo provides unparalleled service to internal and external
customers
Goal:
4
Develop and Maintain Quality Infrastructure and Technology
Objective:
(a)
El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe,
and effective community
Goal:
5
Champion Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability
Objective:
(a)
El Segundo promotes economic growth and vitality for businesses
and the community
12
246
ORIGINATED BY: Melissa McCollum, Library Director MNk
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety �¢
Ken Berkman, Director of Public Works
Joe Lillio, Finance Director ii
Barbara Voss, Deputy City Manager
David King, Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager O/ 4c SWL)
247
BACKGROUND
On December 18, 2018, the City Council directed the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee
(ACC) and staff to develop an art in public places proposal for City Council consideration. After
soliciting input from community stakeholders, including comments and recommendations on
appropriate exceptions and thresholds, an ordinance was drafted that established requirements for
private developers to provide artwork on-site or pay an in -lieu fee to the City.
The ACC and staff consulted with numerous stakeholders during the past year in the form of
one-on-one conversations, presentations, and public meetings. Groups included the Chamber of
Commerce's Government Affairs Committee and several City Committees, Commissions, and
Boards, including the Economic Development Advisory Council, Planning Commission, Library
Board of Trustees, Recreation and Parks Committee, Gateway Committee, and Senior Citizen
Housing Board. The ACC and staff also spoke with independent artists, architects, developers,
lawyers, art consultants, realtors, and policy managers during the development of this proposal.
On July 16, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance. The
City Council directed the ACC and staff to revise the ordinance based on feedback provided
during the meeting, including raising the building valuation threshold for the requirement and
eliminating a maximum cap on contributions. The City Council continued the public hearing.
The original draft of the ordinance made amendments to Title 3, which deals with revenue and
finances. In the development of the ordinance it was determined that it is more properly located
in Title 15 because courts have determined that this type of program is essentially a development
standard and the fee is an in -lieu option. Once that determination was made, the ordinance was
re -drafted and required Planning Commission review and approval. The Planning Commission
approved Resolution 2875 during their meeting on October 10, 2019, and recommended 4-0 that
the City Council adopt the ordinance establishing a public art or in -lieu fee requirement and a
Cultural Development Fund in El Segundo.
Highlights of the revised ordinance include:
• Requirement applies to commercial and industrial development projects in El Segundo
that have a building valuation of $2 million or more
• To comply with the ordinance, a project would include a civic artwork on site valued at
one percent of the project's building valuation
• The developer may choose instead to contribute an in -lieu fee to the Cultural
Development Fund valued at one percent of the building valuation
• The Cultural Development Fund would be administered by the City of El Segundo, and
will be managed and maintained for the sole purposes of:
1. Design, acquisition, commission, installation, improvement, maintenance, and
insurance of artwork; and
2. Sponsoring or supporting artistic and cultural services, such as performances and
experiences, including performing arts, literary arts, media arts, arts education,
art events, temporary artworks, and festivals
'0W
ANALYSIS
Thirty-six cities in Los Angeles County have enacted art in public places ordinances, including
several high profile cities that are attracting new residents and creative industries. Examples
include Beverly Hills, Culver City, Los Angeles, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Santa
Monica, and West Hollywood. The County Board of Supervisors approved the first reading of a
Percent for Art in Private Development Ordinance for unincorporated areas in LA County on
July 23, 2019. In addition, six of the ten nominees for Most Business -Friendly City for 2019
have Percent for Arts Programs, including Bellflower, Lancaster, Norwalk, Monrovia, Pasadena,
and Santa Fe Springs.
A similar Cultural Development Program in El Segundo will create additional public access to
the arts, help drive tourism and revenue to local businesses, contribute toward realizing cultural
equity and inclusion, create opportunities for artists and art organizations in the community, and
help grow the Creative Economy. El Segundo has an opportunity to grow as an arts destination
in the Los Angeles region, reflecting its unique cultural composition and history as well as the
influences of technology and local businesses on public spaces.
Creative Economv Renorl
The Creative Economy, including arts and culture, digital media, entertainment, product and toy
design, and more, plays an important role in El Segundo. Highlights of the recent Creative
Economy Report for the City of El Segundo prepared by Beacon Economics reports:
r El Segundo's Creative Economy generated $3.3 billion in economic output in 2017
• Total employment supported by the creative economy in the City totaled 11,433 of which
almost 6000 positions were supported directly by the creative industries
w 262 El Segundo firms worked in creative industries, a 36% increase from 2008 to 2017
Related stakeholder interviews conducted by Beacon Economics demonstrated that the
atmosphere, aesthetic, and authenticity of El Segundo appealed to businesses when looking for
space as well as the high-quality, tight -knit, innovative, and collaborative creative community.
Creative industry stakeholders also asked during interviews to be more intimately included in the
City's planning, development, and beautification. One said, "Ask us. Ask artists to help beautify
and plan the City of El Segundo, whether that's just painting sidewalks or deciding how to
integrate beach access, artists can be tangibly helpful."
The ACC believes the City of El Segundo should consider the Creative Economy when making
policy decisions, such as the current proposal to create a Cultural Development Program.
Cultural Development Program Goals
The ACC identified six goals for how a Cultural Development Program could be used in the
community to help support many of the City's strategic priorities, including enhancing customer
engagement and communications, developing and maintaining quality infrastructure, and
championing economic development.
1. Permeate the City with public art and programs to create a comprehensive community
identity
►�V
2. Artistically enhance already -budgeted capital improvement projects
3. Advocate for art and cultural events on weekends to increase hotel occupancies
4. Award local excellence in commercial beautification and amenities
5. Stimulate a higher level of art engagement in schools and civic organizations
6. Contribute to achieving the "City Enjoyable"
Percent for Arts rlrr in Pvblic Places Ordinance Comparisons within Los Aneeles t~ouniv.
Percent for Arts ordinances and program management vary among cities.
The proposed El Segundo Cultural Development Program requirement includes:
a $2 million project threshold (no fees on projects valued below $2 million)
a No fees on residential development
a A 1% Fee on commercial and industrial construction and renovation
a No cap (fee applies to full project value regardless of size)
The $2 million building valuation threshold for the proposed fee is higher than any of the 36
jurisdictions in LA County with percent for arts ordinances (only the City of San Diego has a
higher threshold in California at $5 million), and reflects El Segundo's goal to remain a
"Business -Friendly City." In the following analysis of commercial and industrial permits issued
during the past ten years, staff determined that a Cultural Development fee implemented for El
Segundo projects with building valuation of $2 million or more would have impacted 15 projects
per year and generated approximately $685,000 per year in public art and/or fees paid to the
Cultural Development Fund. In contrast, the original proposed building valuation threshold of
$500,000 would have generated $1 million and applied to 59 projects per year.
Some examples of the types of projects valued around $2 million over the past several years are:
a new 2 -story office building at 400 Duley Road ($2.OM); entire 15th floor tenant improvement
and remodel at 100 N Sepulveda (PCH) ($1.9M); remodel of ground floor lobby and restrooms
on 12 floors at 2260 E Imperial ($2.1M); and tenant improvement at credit union office at 2121
E Maple, including new walls, doors, lighting, air conditioning, and a generator ($2.5M).
250
Art Fee Threshold Comparison, 10 years (2008-2018)
Permits
Total valuation
Yearly
1 % of yearly
Permits
over
Proposed
over threshold
valuation over
valuation over
over
threshold
threshold
2008-2018
threshold
threshold
threshold
per year
$500,000
$1.08613
$108.6M
$1,086,000
594
59
750,000
981 M
98.1 M
981,000
419
42
1,000,000
870M
87.OM
870,000
285
29
2,000,000
685M
68.5M
685,000
148
15
5,000,000
339M
33.9M
339,000
36
4
7,500,000
247M
24.7M
247,000
19
2
Some examples of the types of projects valued around $2 million over the past several years are:
a new 2 -story office building at 400 Duley Road ($2.OM); entire 15th floor tenant improvement
and remodel at 100 N Sepulveda (PCH) ($1.9M); remodel of ground floor lobby and restrooms
on 12 floors at 2260 E Imperial ($2.1M); and tenant improvement at credit union office at 2121
E Maple, including new walls, doors, lighting, air conditioning, and a generator ($2.5M).
250
Based on the previous 10 years, an average of about $685,000 is expected per year. However,
during period of economic expansion that number may be higher, and conversely, may be lower
when construction activity declines. El Segundo is not immune to this type of fluctuation, but
does tend to fare better than other local cities due to nature and diversity of our businesses and
industries. The average estimated fees from this program are based on a period that included a
severe downturn and consistent growth in the local economy and should be fairly representative
of the average over the coming decade.
The ACC also recommends not applying the Cultural Development requirement to residential
projects based on community feedback. In contrast, 30 of 36 cities in LA County do apply their
percent for arts fees to multi -unit residential development.
The 1% and no cap recommendations are standard for percent for art ordinances. Twenty-nine of
36 cities have 1% fees and only four cities have caps on contributions ranging from $50,000-
$750,000 (Azusa, Calabasas, Downey, and Redondo Beach).
Construction Fee Comparisons
The Department of Planning and Building Safety also researched how El Segundo's current fees
for commercial construction compared to fees in neighboring communities, and determined fees
in other cities were significantly higher (double or triple the cost of El Segundo depending on
building valuation). Most of the cities have adopted Percent for Arts ordinances as well.
The table below compares El Segundo's rates for plan checks and permits versus the fees
charged by nearby cities. Note El Segundo's fees are 49% lower for $500,000 projects, 68%
lower for $1,000,000 projects, and 66% lower for $10,000,000 projects.
Comparison of Plan Check and Permit Fees by City
Project valuation
$500,000
$1M
$5M
$10M
El Segundo
$5,797
$10,368
$30,648
$55,998
Los Angeles
$9,068
$17,370
$69,895
$135,552
Manhattan Beach
10,670
18,385
66,059
96,672
Glendale
10,665
20,325
76,445
146,595
Culver City
12,565
23,575
108,955
216,055
Torrance
13,504
23,684
118,324
236,628
Percent Over El Segundo's Fees
Los Angeles
56%
68%
128%
142%
Manhattan Beach
84
44
116
73
Glendale
84
96
149
162
Culver City
117
127
256
286
Torrance
133
128
286
323
251
Cultural Development Proo•am Aunlicahilily and Exceptions
Development projects to be subject to the Ordinance in El Segundo are limited to new
commercial and industrial developments on private property, or additions or modifications to
existing commercial and industrial buildings on private property, with a cumulative building
valuation of at least $2 million. Commercial components in a mixed-use residential -commercial
development project are subject to the Ordinance; residential components are exempt.
Exemptions also are provided for certain commercial and industrial projects from the
requirements of the Ordinance, such as renovations or rehabilitation required for seismic safety
or for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and replacement, repair, renovation,
or rehabilitation to an existing building partially or completely destroyed by a fire or natural
disaster up to the original building valuation.
Cultural Develoument Program Administralion
The Cultural Development Program Review Process for on-site developer projects will be
collaborative with the goal of developing the best possible art for the project and the community
at large. The art must be an integral part of the development project and the artist should be
included as a member of the project design team.
Approval will be a two -Part Process:
■ Step 1: Public Art Plan must be presented to the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee
for approval.
• Step 2: Final review and approval by staff is needed prior to the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy
Maintenance of the art will be the responsibility of the developer and its successors for the
lifetime of the building or the length of time as approved by the City.
The Cultural Development Fund will be a Special Expenditure Account administrated by the
Library Services Department in coordination with the Finance Department, Department of
Planning and Building Safety, and Department of Public Works. The ACC will propose an
annual budget to be considered and approved by the City Council each year during the regular
budget process. Recommended expenditure categories will include funding for artistically
enhanced capital projects, permanent art, community experiences, grants, maintenance, and
public art consultants.
Approval of any contracts to be paid by the Cultural Development Fund will comply with the
City's current purchasing limits, i.e., the City Council will approve any contracts for services or
goods in excess of $50,000 per fiscal year (ESMC § 1-7A-5).
Legal 5landardlEnvironmental Comnlfance
Public art requirements and in -lieu fees constitute permissible development standards that are the
City's lawful exercise of its traditional planning and zoning police power. Such an in -lieu fee is
not a development impact fee that is subject to the California Mitigation Fee Act. (Ehrlich v. City
of Culver City (1996) 12 CalAth 854.). This means that unlike other types of development
252
impact fees that must satisfy a "nexus" requirement, to impose an art "in lieu" fee, the City must
only demonstrate that the fee is reasonably related to a constitutionally permissible public
purpose. (Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 CalAth 435).
The proposed ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and
CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have a significant
effect on the environment
Conmliance with Toninz Reauire117e71S
If a civic art installment is to be provided to satisfy the Cultural Development Fund requirement,
compliance with the requirement does not exempt the civic art project from all applicable City
regulations.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance.
If the City Council introduces the proposed ordinance, the ordinance will then be scheduled for a
second reading. If the ordinance is then adopted, it will take effect January 1, 2020.
Administrative Guidelines for the Cultural Development Program will be promulgated by staff
and approved by the City Manager.
253
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15 (ZONING
REGULATIONS) OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE
ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC ART OR IN -LIEU FEE
REQUIREMENT AND A CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Courts have recognized a public art requirement as a lawful exercise of a city's
traditional planning and zoning police power; such a requirement for either
public art or in -lieu fees are not a development impact fee that is subject to the
California Mitigation Fee Act, but instead is considered a development standard
allowed by the City's zoning and police powers, provided the requirement is
reasonably related to a constitutionally permissible public purpose (Ehrlich v.
City of Culver City (1996) 12 CalAth 854; Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of
San Jose (2015) 61 CalAth 435);
B. The City of EI Segundo is 5.46 square miles and has distinct areas throughout
the City that are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, including the
Downtown area, Smoky Hollow, and the portion of the City east of Pacific Coast
Highway. Because the City is surrounded by other cities (Manhattan Beach,
Hawthorne), the Los Angeles International Airport and the Pacific Ocean, and
because the City is almost entirely built out, existing opportunities to expand
public art within the community are scarce;
C. As commercial and industrial development and revitalization of the real
property within the City continues, urbanization of the community results, and
the need to develop new artistic and cultural resources to enhance the
environment, image, and character of the City increases;
D. Cultural and artistic resources enhance the quality of life for individuals living
in, working in, and visiting the City; public art increases cultural awareness,
stimulates imaginations and provokes creative dialog among community
members;
E. The development of artistic and cultural resources promotes the general
welfare of the community, by preserving and improving the quality of the urban
environment, increasing property values, and resulting in a positive economic
output;
F. Artistic and cultural assets should be either provided or financed by those
whose commercial and industrial development and revitalization increase the
community's demand for cultural resources;
G. The proposed public art requirement is a requirement of general application for
254
voluntary development within the City, and the optional in -lieu fee will be used
for providing artwork, cultural services, performing arts and arts events to the
public, as described in this ordinance;
H. On December 18, 2018, the City Council directed the Arts and Culture Advisory
Committee and City staff to develop a Cultural Development Fund proposal for
its consideration;
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo held a noticed public
hearing on October 10, 2019, to review and consider the staff report prepared
for the project, receive public testimony, and review all correspondence
received on the project; the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the
proposed amendments, and adopted PC Resolution No. recommending
the City Council adopt the ordinance; and
On July 16, 2019, and November 5, 2019, the City Council, after giving notice
thereof as required by law, held a public hearing concerning the proposed
ordinance and carefully considered all pertinent testimony offered in the case.
SECTION 2: General Plan and Zoning Consistency. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The proposed ordinance is compatible with, and will not frustrate, the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would
directly advance Goal LU2 and Objectives LU2-1 and LU2-2, which seek to
preserve and enhance the City's cultural resources. The proposed ordinance
would also advance Objective LU2-3, which encourages the development of
public programs and facilities that will meet the cultural needs of the City's
various age, income and ethnic groups. The proposed ordinance is intended to
require developers of industrial and commercial projects to either provide public
art or pay a fee which will be used for public art and cultural activities. The
proposed ordinance establishes a dedicated source of funding for projects and
programs to meet and exceed the cultural needs of the City's residents.
B. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Zoning Code which recognizes
works of art and establishes certain standards to distinguish them from
commercial signs (ESMC § 15-18-3(H)).
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. Based upon the findings of fact set forth in
Sections 1 and 2, the proposed zone text amendment is exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQK) and CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3),
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the
proposed ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.
2
255
SECTION 4: ESMC Section 15-1-6 (Definitions) is amended to add the following terms
and definitions in alphabetical order:
Section 15-1-6. Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in this title, shall have the
meanings respectively ascribed to them in this chapter:
ACCESSIBLE: As pertaining to artworks, see VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE.
APPLICANT: the owner of the property, a developer or tenant utilizing the
property and seeking the required permits.
ARTWORK: original creations of art which is intended for and capable of
being displayed outdoors, including but not limited to, sculpture, murals,
mosaic, fountains, artist -designed landscape features, streetscape
features and earthworks. These categories may be realized through such
mediums as steel, bronze, stained glass, concrete, wood, ceramic the and
stone, as well as other suitable materials.
ARTISTIC OR CULTURAL SERVICES: performances and experiences,
including but not limited to performing arts, literary art, media art, arts
education, art events, temporary artworks and festivals.
COMMERICAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: any
project which results in the development of property in any land use
categories, except for single- and multi -family residential projects
designed for long-term occupancy.
PROJECT COST: the total value of a project, excluding the land value, as
determined by the Building Official of the City, and indicated on the
building permit that is issued by the City for that project.
PUBLIC PLACE: any exterior area on public or private property, which is
visible to the general public as described in Section 15---6.
'41
256
VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE: As pertaining to artworks, means freely accessible
to the public for viewing at least eight hours each day of at least five days per
week.
SECTION 5: ESMC Title 15 (Zoning Regulations) is amended to add the following
chapter:
Chapter 34— Cultural Development.
Section 15-34-1. Purpose.
This chapter is adopted pursuant to the City's planning, zoning and police
powers and may be known and cited as the "City of EI Segundo Cultural
Development Ordinance." The intent of the Ordinance is to promote the
public arts in the City of EI Segundo by creating a collection of visual
artwork and providing artistic or cultural services, such as performing arts,
literary art, media art, arts education, art events, and temporary artworks,
by recognized artists, and of the highest possible quality, throughout the
City, for the public's benefit. As of the effective date of this ordinance, the
City shall require that certain private developments use a portion of
building development funds for the acquisition of publicly -accessible
artwork, or pay to the City an in -lieu fee, as a condition of project approval.
Section 15-34-2. Application.
This chapter shall apply to all commercial or industrial development
projects where the project cost exceeds $2,000,000.00. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, this chapter shall not apply to the following projects:
A. Any project which consists solely of rehabilitation work required for
seismic safety or to comply with government mandates, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 regardless of valuation;
B. The reconstruction of structures which have been partially damaged or
completely destroyed by fire, flood, wind, earthquake or other calamity;
C. Any project constructed by a government agency which is constructed
on property exempt from taxation pursuant to California Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 214;
D. Residential components of a mixed-use development project;
E. Commercial and industrial development projects, or portion(s) thereof,
that are designed and dedicated to performing arts or museum spaces,
so long as the performing arts or museum spaces are maintained
within the building, provided the premises continue to be dedicated as
such. Acceptable facilities include museums, theaters, performance
4
257
arts centers, and other similar facilities.
Section 15-34-3. Requirement to Provide Artwork or Pay In -lieu
Fee.
A. When a project is subject to this chapter, the applicant must either (a)
commission or acquire and install new artwork in a location on or in the
vicinity of the project site, with the appraised value of such artwork and
any direct expenses as described herein being equal to or exceeding
one percent of the project cost; or (b) pay to the City an amount equal
to one percent of the project cost.
B. For purposes of this section, direct expenses associated with the commission,
acquisition or installation of the new artwork include:
1. Art valuation by public art consultant.
2. Consultation and direct administration of art selection and
purchase, not to exceed 10 percent of the art requirement.
3. Insuring the art, up to the time of installation.
4. Shipping or storage of the art, up to the time of installation.
5. Preparation of the site, and actual installation.
6. Other expenses, including waterproofing, lighting, structural
engineering, and additional structural support.
C. Direct expenses shall not include maintenance of the installed artwork
and indirect administrative costs
D. Compliance with this section does not constitute a "public benefit" as
that term is used in certain specific plans within the City, such as the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. An applicant may, however, commission
or acquire and install new artwork with an appraised value greater than
this chapter's one percent of the project cost threshold, and such
additional amount may be considered a "public benefit."
Section 15-34-4. Application and Approval Process.
A. Whenever an applicant proposes a project that may be subject to the
provisions of this chapter, the Department of Planning and Building
Safety must provide the applicant a copy of this chapter and an
application form.
5
258
B. All applicants subject to this ordinance must complete and sign an
application form.
C. If an applicant elects to pay the in -lieu fee, no building permit shall be
issued until the total fee has been paid.
D. If the applicant elects to provide public art, the following provisions
apply:
1. If the applicant is not the property owner, the applicant must submit
a letter from the property owner, in a form acceptable to the City,
acknowledging the property owner's understanding and acceptance
of the property owner's responsibilities under the ordinance.
2. In order to ensure integrated projects, applicants choosing to
commission or acquire and install new artwork for their project shall
submit an application for the Public Art Plan to the City's Library
Services staff. The application will include preliminary plans that
include the proposed location of the artwork and any other
documents reasonably required pursuant to the guidelines
promulgated by staff and approved by the City Manager.
4. The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee shall review the
completed application for the Public Art Plan and approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the proposed artwork, and its proposed
location, based on the "Standards for Artworks" outlined in Section
15-34-5. The committee's decision is subject to appeal pursuant to
Section 15-34-8.
5. No building permit shall be issued by the Department of Planning
and Building Safety unless the applicant has executed an
agreement committing the applicant to complying with this Chapter
and submitting an application for the Public Art Plan by a certain
date.
6. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the Department of
Planning and Building Safety unless and until (a) the application for
the Public Art Plan has been approved and the artwork has been
installed and complies with this Chapter and (b) the property owner
executes and records with the Los Angeles County Registrar -
Recorder's office, a covenant regarding the maintenance of the
artwork, as required by Section 15-34-7.
rl�
259
Section 15-34-5. Standards for Artworks.
A. Standards for the approval, siting, and installation of artworks shall
include, but are not limited to, the following criteria:
1. The artwork shall be displayed in an area that is visible and
accessible by the public, as defined in Chapter 15-2. The
application shall include a site plan showing the location of the
artwork, complete with landscaping, lighting and other appropriate
accessories to complement and protect the artwork.
2. The composition of the artwork shall be of a permanent type of
material in order to be durable against vandalism, theft, and
weather and requiring a low level of maintenance.
3. The artwork shall be designed and constructed by an artist
experienced in the production of such artwork and recognized by
critics and by the artist's peers as one who produces works of art.
4. The artwork shall be permanently affixed to the property.
5. The artwork's concept and design must be compatible with the
site's environment and function.
B. The following items are not to be considered as works of art:
1. Art objects which are mass produced from a standard design, such
as playground equipment or fountain pieces;
2. Reproductions of original artworks, unless it is incorporated into an
original artwork or a limited edition;
3. Decorative, ornamental or functional elements which are designed
by the building architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for
the purpose of creating the artwork;
4. Landscape architecture and landscape gardening unless such
elements are designed or approved by the artist and are an integral
part of the artwork by the artist;
5. Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the artwork;
6. Directional elements such as super graphics, signs or color coding,
except where these elements are integral parts of the original
artwork or executed by the artist in unique or limited editions;
7
260
7. Artwork that incorporates logos, images, text or other elements that
refer or relate to a business or organization's name, branding or
marketing themes;
8. Architectural rehabilitation, historic preservation and structural
building modifications.
Section 15-34-6. Maintenance and Repair of Artworks.
A. The artwork installed on private property pursuant to this chapter shall
be and remain the property of the property owner.
B. Artwork installed on City property shall be the property of the City.
C. The artwork and its setting shall be maintained by the property owner
in good repair and in a safe, functional, accessible, and clean
condition, all in a manner acceptable to the City. Before the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy for the project, the property owner shall
execute and record with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder's
office, a covenant approved by the City Manager, and in a form
approved by the City Attorney, providing, among other things that the
property owner and its successor and assigns shall maintain the
artwork as required by this section. The property owner may assign the
obligations of this Subsection to the applicant without having to first
obtain the prior approval of the City.
D. In the event repair of the artwork is required, the artist who created it
shall be given the first opportunity to do that work for a reasonable fee.
In the event the artist is unable or unwilling to do so, the City or the
property owner may proceed to contract for such repair with another
qualified artist.
E. In the event the City declares the artwork a public nuisance pursuant to
Chapter 7-1, the property owner must promptly abate the nuisance.
Section 15-34-7. Cultural Development Fund.
A. There is hereby created a fund to be known as the "Cultural
Development Fund." Any moneys collected in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter shall be deposited into the fund. The fund
shall be administered by the City of EI Segundo's Director of Finance.
B. The City Manager or designee shall provide an annual accounting to
the City Council regarding the use of all fees collected and deposited in
the Cultural Development Fund, including identification of all
expenditures and balances during the prior fiscal year and
recommendations for expenditures for the subsequent fiscal year.
D
261
C. The Fund shall be used to provide art in public places in order to
further the intent and purpose of this chapter. Expenditures of funds
shall be limited to the following uses:
1. For the design, acquisition, commission, installation, improvement,
relocation, maintenance, conservation, restoration, utility charges,
and insurance of artwork;
2. To sponsor or support artistic or cultural services;
3. For the City's costs of administering the Cultural Development Fund
and associated programs.
D. The City Council may request the Arts and Culture Advisory
Committee to make recommendations to City Council for expenditures
from the Cultural Development Fund in accordance with this chapter.
E. Endowments. The Fund shall also be used as a depository for
monetary endowments, bequests, grants or donations made for public
arts purposes. Such sums may be expended as set forth in this
chapter.
Section 15-34-8. Appeal.
Any person may seek review of a decision by the Building Official or the
Arts and Culture Advisory Committee. Appeals of the Building Official's
decision must be made pursuant to Section 113.3 of the California
Building Code, as amended by Section 13-1-2 of this Code. Appeals of a
decision of the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee must be made by
filing a written appeal with the City Clerk's Office within 10 working days of
the Committee's decision and pay an appeal fee. The City Council shall
hold at least one hearing on the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee's
decision and the hearing shall be held within 40 calendar days of the
appeal request. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify a decision
of the Committee and the decision of the City Council shall be final.
Section 15-34-9. Administrative Guidelines.
Administrative Guidelines for implementation of this program shall be
promulgated by staff and approved by the City Manager.
Section 15-34-10. Violations.
In addition to other fines or penalties provided by law, the City may revoke
or suspend any discretionary permit granted to any applicant who violates
any provision of this chapter.
0
262
SECTION 6: CONSTRUCTION. This ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the
provisions of this ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a
manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this ordinance.
SECTION 7: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the EI Segundo Municipal
Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude
prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this ordinance's
effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining
action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 8: VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS CODE SECTIONS. If this entire ordinance or its
application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or
amendment of the ESMC or other city ordinance by this ordinance will be rendered void
and cause such previous ESMC provision or other the city ordinance to remain in full
force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 9: SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 10; The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original ordinances;
make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15
days after the passage and adoption of this ordinance, cause it to be published or posted
in accordance with California law.
all
263
SECTION 11: This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty-first day following its
passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2019.
ATTEST: Drew Boyles, Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the day of , 2019, and was duly passed and adopted by said City
Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the day of 2019, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
11
264
RESOLUTION NO. 2875
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
EL SEGUNDO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 15 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE
EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC ART OR
IN -LIEU FEE REQUIREMENT AND A CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUND.
Environmental Assessment No. 1268 and
Zone Text Amendment No. 19-10
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. Courts have recognized a public art requirement as a lawful exercise of a city's
traditional planning and zoning police power; such a requirement for either public
art or in -lieu fees are not a development impact fee that is subject to the California
Mitigation Fee Act, but instead is considered a development standard allowed by
the City's zoning and police powers, provided the requirement is reasonably
related to a constitutionally permissible public purpose (Ehrlich v. City of Culver
City (1996) 12 CalAth 854; Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61
CalAth 435);
B. The City of EI Segundo is 5.46 square miles and has distinct areas throughout the
City that are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, including the Downtown
area, Smoky Hollow, and the portion of the City east of Pacific Coast Highway.
Because the City is surrounded by other cities (Manhattan Beach, Hawthorne), the
Los Angeles International Airport and the Pacific Ocean, and because the City is
almost entirely built out, existing opportunities to expand public art within the
community are scarce;
C. As commercial and industrial development and revitalization of the real property
within the City continues, urbanization of the community results, and the need to
develop new artistic and cultural resources to enhance the environment, image,
and character of the City increases;
D. Cultural and artistic resources enhance the quality of life for individuals living in,
working in, and visiting the City; public art increases cultural awareness, stimulates
imaginations and provokes creative dialog among community members;
E. The development of artistic and cultural resources promotes the general welfare
of the community, by preserving and improving the quality of the urban
environment, increasing property values, and resulting in a positive economic
output;
265
F. Artistic and cultural assets should be either provided or financed by those whose
commercial and industrial development and revitalization increase the
community's demand for cultural resources;
G. The proposed public art requirement is a requirement of general application for
voluntary development within the City, and the optional in -lieu fee will be used for
providing artwork, cultural services, performing arts and arts events to the public,
as described in this ordinance;
H. On December 18, 2018, the City Council directed the Arts and Culture Advisory
Committee and City staff to develop a Cultural Development Fund proposal for its
consideration; and
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo held a noticed public hearing
on October 10, 2019, to review and consider the staff report prepared for the
project, receive public testimony, and review all correspondence received on the
project.
SECTION 2: General Plan and Zoning Consistency Findings. As required under
Government Code § 65454 the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's General
Plan as follows:
A. The proposed ordinance is compatible with, and will not frustrate, the goals and
policies of the City's General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance would
directly advance Goal LU2 and Objectives LU2-1 and LU2-2, which seek to
preserve and enhance the City's cultural resources. The proposed ordinance
would also advance Objective LU2-3, which encourages the development of public
programs and facilities that will meet the cultural needs of the City's various age,
income and ethnic groups. The proposed ordinance is intended to require
developers of industrial and commercial projects to either provide public art or pay
a fee which will be used for public art and cultural activities. The proposed
ordinance establishes a dedicated source of funding for projects and programs to
meet and exceed the cultural needs of the City's residents.
B. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Zoning Code which recognizes
works of art and establishes certain standards to distinguish them from commercial
signs (ESMC § 15-18-3(H)).
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. Based upon the findings of fact set forth in
Sections 1 and 2, the proposed zone text amendment is exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQK) and CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3),
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the
proposed ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4: Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the ordinance set forth in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated into this
resolution by reference.
2
266
SECTION 5: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the Planning
Commission in all respects; and
SECTION 6: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in
evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
SECTION 7: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
SECTION 8: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will
remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of October, 2019.
ATTEST:
Sam Lee, Secretary
M
Ryan Baldino, Chairperson
City of EI Segundo Planning Commission
Baldino
Newman
Hoeschler
Keldorf
Wingate
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
David King, Assistant City Attorney
3
267
I
I
Percent forArt/Art in Public Places Ordinances
Jurisdictions within Los Angeles County
September 2018
Cities within
Year
Code Citation
Percent
ResfdqntlaL
Buildjng,
Hard and/or
Admin
LA County1.
Ordinance
�- (Chapter)
i Development
I Valuation
Programmatic
Experidityte
AckAted
Included
Threshold
Art
'Cap
Alhambra
2001, updated
23.81
Subject to City
Yes, 5+ units;
$500,000
Hard
-
2012
Council
affordable
resolution
housing
exemot
Azusa
2009
88.39
1% to
Yes, B+units
$750,000
Hard
10% to
maximum cap
{
consultation
$50,000
I
fee
Baldwin Park
2004
154
1%
Yes, 4+ units;
$50,000
Hard
-
affordable
housing
exempt
Bellflower
20053.32
I
I
1%
Yes, 2+ units
I
Res $500,000
Hard
CA 5250,000
I
Beberly Hills
1996, updated
3.1-801 at seq
Tiered
No
$500,000
Hard
Permit fees,
2015
1% first 1
consultation
million, plus
fees, travel,
1,5% over 1
prep work do
million
not count
towards %
Burbank
2008, updated
10-1-1114
Tiered
Yes.
MFR $1.5
Hard—onsite
10% to
2011
1% first $15
Subdivisions
million
Both with in-
consultation/
million, plus
under 30 units,
C/I $500,000
Ileu fee
management
0.75% $15.1-
affordable/SC
fee
$25 million,
housing
plus
exempt
1
0.50% above
$25 million
Calabasas
2010
17.24
1% to
No
7
Hard
maximum cap
01`5150,000
Carson
Last update
9138.17J.S.o
1%
Mixed use only
All projects In
7
?
2011/2014
and
MU over
9137.18J.1.m
25,000 sf
— for Carson
No
Street Mixed
requirements,
Use Zone Only
lust guidelines
Cerritos
2000, updated
22.94
1%
Yes, 4+ units
$250,000
Hard
-
2001
Claremont
20057,
16.148
1%-C/I, CIP
Yes, 2+ units or
$150,000 CIP
Both?
20% of Fund
updated 2014
0.5% Res
subdivisions
$250,000 CA
for Admin cost
with S+ lots
5250.000 Res
Commerce
2015
1931, Div. 23
1%
Yes, 4+ units
5250,000
Hard
-
Culver City
1988, updated
15.06
1%
Yes, 5+ units;
$500,000 new
Both but
15% of Fund
2013
(<$75,000 in-
Affordable/sc
$250,000
excluding
for
lieu only,
housing
remodels
performances
maintenance,
475,000 have
exempt
and 15% of
options)
Fund for
Admin cart
E Downey
2005, updated
VIII -10 Sec
1%, up to
Yes, 4+ units
$500,000
Hard
2012
8950 et seq
SSS0.000
EI Monte
2006, updated
15.07
1%
Yes, 4+ units
$500,000 C/1
Hard
2016
Res —4+ units
Glendale
2010
30.37
1% for in -lieu
Yes, 3+ units in
$500,000
Both
2% actual art
commercial
and mixed-use
zones only
(Affordable
housing
exemot)
2
269
i
Huntington
2005
9-3.1701 et
1%
Yes, 2+ units;
$100,000 new
Hard on-site,
-
Park
seq
affordable /sc
$50,000
Both with
housing
remodels
funds
exempt
Ingrewood
2004, updated
f Art 14, 11-140
I 1%
No
$250,000I
Hard
-
2013
I etseq
I
Los Angeles
1989, 1991
Admin Code
Based on
No
$500,000
Both
-
22.118,91-
square footage
107.4.6
(0.39-1.57 sf
depending on
use)
Lynwood
2006
11-20
1.5%
Yes
$100,000
Hard
15% Admin
Cost
10%
Maintenance
MalibuI
2014
1759 f
2% on-site I
Yes, 4+units
$250,000
Hard
Hard
+ -
I
1% in -lieu
J
I
ManhattanI
2002
1090
1%
Yes, 4+ units
$500,000 new
?for on-site;
20% Admin
Beach
I
I
I
$250,000
I
Both for In -lieu
I
cost
remodels
Monrovla
2004, updated
15.44
1%
Yes, 5+units;
$1,000,000
Hard
Part of%can
2017
affordable
go to library
housing
Fund instead
exempt
Norwalk
2014 I
15.44
1%
Yes. 4+units
$500=0
Hard
Paramount 11993,
uu18dated I
By resolution
1%
Yes, S+ units
$100,000
Both
`
I
I
Pasadena
2002 and
17.40.100
1%
Yes, only in
25,000 sq ft for
Both
25% Admin
2007, updated
two districts
C/I/M%D,
cost
2017
(3+ units)
except
$500,000in
two districts
Pomona I
2011 I
.5809-24
1% !
Yes, 30+ units 1
$750,000 I
Hard
3
270
Redondo
2015
10-6
1%, up to
' Yes, 3+ units
$250,000
Hard 5% for
Beach
$750,000
maintenance
Rosemead
2013
17.92
Required, but
No (only
All projects
Hard
no specific
regional
regardless of
amount
commercial
value
zone)
Santa Fe
2000, updated
38.40 et seq
Under $2
Yes
$300,000
Hard
Springs
2014
million, 1% In -
lieu only
Over $2
million, 1% on-
site or In4ieu
Santa Monica
2006
9.04.10.20
2% for on-site,
Yes, 5+units
7500sffor
Hard+cultural
1%x total
newcomm,
facility
project sq ft —
25,000 sf for
as established
remodels,
by resolution
5+ units for
new res
i Sierra Madre
2006
17.90
1%
Yes, 4+ units
$250,000
Hard -
20061 + CPI
South Gate
2000, updated
11.32
1%
Yes, 5+ units
$500,000 new,
Hard -
2015
$250,000
remodels
West Covina
2004, updated
17-31 et seq
0.5%
Yes, 10+ units-,
$500,000 new
Hard
2008
(Article li)
Residential
affordable/sc
non -res,
(Funds can be
1% Others
housing
5+ units res,
used for both)
exempt
$250,000 non -
res remodels
West
2001
19.38
1%
Yes, 3+units;
$200,000
Not stated or
Hollywood
affordable
defined
housing
exempt
Westlake
2006
9.39
1%on-slte
No
$100,000
Hard
Vlllaee
1.25% in -lieu
4
271
1
I
Whittier 1993, updated
1998
1752 0.5% or Yes, 3+ units $250,000 Hard
$20,000—on-
site
0.5% in -lieu
TOTAL36
Jurisdictions
Yeas
Code Citatioff-
Percent
Rgsideritial
adilding
Hard and/or
Admin
outsigeLi
Ordinance
JChapterj
Development'.
'llaldation
Programmatic
Expenditure
county
Adoptdd
Inchtdea
Threshold
Art.
Cap
City of San
2004, updated
Article 6,
1% for on-site,
No
$5 million
Both
1596foradmin
Diego
2008
Division 7,
0.5% in -lieu
costs, or 20% If
Section
through RFP
26.0701 etseq
process
City of Palo
2013
16.61
1%
Yes, S+ units
$200,000 and
Both
-
Alto
>10,000
squarefeet
City of
2014
15.70
0.5%
Yes, 20+ units
2,000 square
Hard
Oakland
Residential, 1%
feet for
Nonresidential
nonresidential
20 units for
residential
city and
1985, updated
Section 429 of
1%
Yes, only in C-3
Commercial
Hard
Downtown
County of San
2012
the Planning
Zone
projects over
area only
Francisco
Code
25,000square
feet in certain
zones/zoned
districts
Cltyof
2017
Zoning -15.04,
1%
Yes, 10+unIts
$500,000
Both
Richmond
Public Works —
12.62
5
272
d
I
City of San
2005
23.60
0.5%
Yes, multi-
$3 million
Not Stated
_
Mateo
family
residences
City of
2016,
23C.23
1.7%on-ske
Yes, S+units;
5+ units, all
Hard
Berkeley
amended 2017
0.8% In -lieu
affordable and
new
(In Guidelines)
transitional
construction,
housing
and additions
exempt
of10,000+SF
for commercial
and industrial
City of Dana
1994,
9.05.240
0.5%
Yes, S+ units
$1 million
Hard, but can
-
Point
amended 2010
construct
space for use
of
performance
art
City of
1991,
3-2.401 et seq.
1% non-
Yes, 20+ units
$300,000 for
Not Stated
Emeryville
amended 1992
residential
nonresidential
(refer to
and 2009
0.5%
20+ units for
Guidelines)
residential
residential
City of
2017
Chapter XXX,
1%
Yes, 5+ units;
$250,000
Both
25% cap to be
Alameda
Article VIII
affordable
spent on
(30-98)
housing and
programmatic
nonprofit
art
development
projects
exempt
TOTALIO
TOTAL ALL JURMDIC7iONS. 46
6
273